General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Scientists Retract Vaccine-Autism Link

Started by Mark Probert-Ma · · Last activity · 6 posts · 452 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
3 March 2004
Last activity
4 March 2004
Original author
Mark Probert-Ma
Posts
6
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
452
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–6 of 6
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. This will cause some real consternation amongst those who claim that anything like this that comes
    from EOM cannot be trusted.

    Jan Drew will do flips!

    Scientists Retract Vaccine-Autism Link 29 minutes ago Add Science - AP to My Yahoo!

    By EMMA ROSS, AP Medical Writer

    LONDON - Most of the scientists involved in a widely discredited 1998 study that suggested a link
    between childhood vaccinations and autism have renounced the conclusion.

    A formal retraction is to be published this week in The Lancet medical journal by 10 of the 13
    authors of the paper, which raised the possibility that the measles, mumps and rubella triple
    vaccine could be linked to autism.

    The text was released Wednesday by The Lancet.

    The study, which was conducted on 12 children, was done about eight years after the children had
    been vaccinated and involved parents remembering whether the autism symptoms occurred around the
    same time as the vaccination.

    The suggestion triggered a collapse in public confidence in the vaccine. The possibility of such a
    link has since been discredited on scientific grounds by several rigorous subsequent studies, but
    some parents have clung to the findings and health officials say that vaccination rates have fallen
    dangerously low since its publication.

    Immunization rates also fell in other European countries after the research was published.

    "We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between (the) vaccine
    and autism, as the data were insufficient. However, the possibility of such a link was raised," the
    scientists said in the retraction.

    "Consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now
    is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed on these
    findings in the paper," the group wrote.

    The scientists, led by Dr. Simon Murch, a pediatric gastroenterologist at the Royal Free Hospital in
    London, work for institutions ranging from the Institute of Child Health in Liverpool, England, to
    Cambridge University.

    The retraction has not been signed by the main author of the original paper,
    Dr. Andrew Wakefield, nor by one other author, Peter Harvey.

    The group writing the retraction said it could not contact a third scientist involved with the
    original work, John Linnell.

    Wakefield and Harvey could not be reached immediately for comment. Wakefield has maintained that the
    suggestion of a link between the vaccine and autism is valid, despite the findings of authoritative
    groups such as the World Health Organization (news - web sites) and the U.S. Institute of Medicine
    (news - web sites).

    The retraction comes after the revelation last month that, at the time of the original publication,
    Wakefield had neglected to mention to his co-authors or the journal that he was also being paid by a
    legal aid service looking for evidence as to whether families could sue over the immunizations. Some
    of the children in the lawsuit were also in the Lancet study.

    Last month, the journal called the situation a "fatal conflict of interest" and said it would not
    have published the research if the connection had been revealed.

  2. Does this mean that Dr. Wakefield is "toast"?

    What is the status of the lawsuits?

    Does anyone know/suspect who the "whistleblower" was?

  3. "Mark Probert-March 3, 2004" <Mark [email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    This will cause some real consternation amongst those who claim that anything like this that comes
    from EOM cannot be trusted.

    Jan Drew will do flips!

    Scientists Retract Vaccine-Autism Link 29 minutes ago Add Science - AP to My Yahoo!

    By EMMA ROSS, AP Medical Writer

    LONDON - Most of the scientists involved in a widely discredited 1998 study that suggested a link
    between childhood vaccinations and autism have renounced the conclusion.

    <snip>

    Oh, Mark, don't you know that these 10 have been PAID OFF to retract? And that Wakefield is the only
    PURE and TRUSTWORTHY one of the bunch? There's no possible explanation otherwise. It's not like
    honest scientists would ever say, "Well, the preliminary data looked like 'X', but it turns out that
    we were wrong."

    Look for Wakefield to join forces with Hulda Clark in Tijuana sometime soon...

    Mark, MD

  4. <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Does this mean that Dr. Wakefield is "toast"?

    What is the status of the lawsuits?

    In England, the plaintiffs attorneys have been getting financial support from a government (i.e.
    taxpayer) sponsored program to "prove" their claims. Last year,after spending a lot of pounds, the
    program cut the money pipe and the attorneys are appealing it. This revalation about Wakefield is
    likely to ensure that they lose their appeal.

    In the US the attorneys representing the plaintiffs lay out the costs of litigation and then take
    the costs off the top of any moneys moving to their clients. Technically, if they lose, their
    clients have to repay them. when lawyers see that they may have no chance of winning, they often
    find that their sock drawers need re-arranging. See what happened with the five anti_rialin suits.

    Quoted message said:

    Does anyone know/suspect who the "whistleblower" was?

    A hero, no doubt. I read an article describing how this came about...IIRC it was a reporter, but I
    cannot recall his name.

  5. "Mark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    "Mark Probert-March 3, 2004" <Mark [email hidden]> wrote


    in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    This will cause some real consternation amongst those who claim that anything like this that
    comes from EOM cannot be trusted.

    Jan Drew will do flips!

    Scientists Retract Vaccine-Autism Link 29 minutes ago Add Science - AP to My Yahoo!

    By EMMA ROSS, AP Medical Writer

    LONDON - Most of the scientists involved in a widely discredited 1998


    study

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    that suggested a link between childhood vaccinations and autism have renounced the conclusion.

    <snip>

    Oh, Mark, don't you know that these 10 have been PAID OFF to retract?

    Were they lying then, or were they lying now?

    Quoted message said:

    And that Wakefield is the only PURE and TRUSTWORTHY one of the bunch?

    Sure 'nuf.

    Quoted message said:

    There's no possible explanation otherwise. It's not like honest scientists would ever say, "Well,
    the preliminary data looked like 'X', but it turns out that we were wrong."

    Of course...

    Quoted message said:

    Look for Wakefield to join forces with Hulda Clark in Tijuana sometime soon...

    Yikes!

  6. <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    To my knowledge, personal injury cases in the US such as this are always taken on cintingency..

    Correct. That means that the attorney is financing the litigation.

    Quoted message said:

    If the plaintiff's attorney loses, they essentially have to suck it up; their client is monetarily
    off the hook. That's why they have to pick & choose their cases very carefully & why the ususal
    attorney's fee is commonly at least one-third, of any out-of-court settlement or jury award
    (possibly plus expenses) because of the risk involved in not getting paid at all.

    While that is true in practice, the common law rules of "champerty & maintenance", are strictly
    adhered to in the UK, are not followed in the US.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.